Haryana

StateCommission

A/413/2015

SUNITA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NAUCH PRIMARY AGRI.COOPERTIVEE SOCIETY AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV MAJRA

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.413 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 05.05.2015

Date of Decision: 18.01.2017

 

Sunita widow of Karambir Singh s/o Sh.Prithi Singh r/o Nauch Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      The Nauch Primary Agri. Cooperative Society Ltd. Nauch District Kaithal, through its Manager.

2.      Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, Flat No.303 to 310, Kailash Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sanjeev Majra, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   None for the respondent No.1

                   Mr.Manoj Dhiman, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that her husband Karambir Singh was share holder of O.P.No.1 and took insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- from opposite party (O.P.) No.2.  On 29.03.2010 he slipped from the roof when the house was under construction and received multiple injuries.  Initially he was taken to  Sanjeevni Hospital Kaithal and from there he was referred to PGI,Chandigarh, where he breathed his last on that very day.  His post mortem examination was also conducted at PGI,Chandigarh. DDR No.18 was recorded on 30.03.2010 at P.S.Sadar Kaithal about this incident. O.Ps. were requested to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as mentioned in insurance policy, but, to no avail. Notice was also sent, but, the same did not bear any fruit. Hence this complaint.

2.      Both the O.ps. filed separate replies.  It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that complainant was not entitled for any relief from it because an alternative efficacious remedy was available to her.  Objections  about locus standi, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      O.P.No.2 filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that as per condition E (1) (b) and (F) of terms of insurance policy information was to be given within 15 days from the date of incident to it whereas in the present case intimation was given to it on 08.11.2010 after about seven months of the incident, so her claim was rightly repudiated.  Objections about concealment of true facts, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal, allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.01.2015 and directed as under:-

“We allow the complaint and direct the O.P.No.2 to settle the claim of complainant on non- standard basis i.e. 75% of Rs.50,000/- (the insured value) i.e. Rs.37,500/-.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 vehemently argued that as per condition E (1) (b) and (F)  of insurance policy information about this incident was to be given within 15 days, whereas in the present case the information was given after seven months. So her claim was rightly repudiated.  Not to talk of enhancement she is not entitled even for the compensation awarded by the learned District forum.

8.      This argument is devoid of any force. From the perusal of PMR Ex.c-2 it is clear that at the time of incident deceased life assured (DLA) was 32 years old. Complainant might be 30 years old at the time of death of husband.  At such young age it is a great shock to wife. It will take very long time to compromise  with the situation and come out of the shock.  Losing partner at such tender age is the sevearest possible shock. Such like wound takes a long time to heal. One cannot come to normal position within such short period.  After the death of husband at such tender age it will not come to the mind of widow to rush to insurance company to get compensation because it cannot compensate the loss suffered.

9.      More so, word 15 days used in these conditions is only indicative to approach insurance company so that matter can be looked into  at the earliest and it can be verified whether there is foul play or not. Whereas in the present case DLA expired at PGI, Chandigarh which is clear from the perusal of copy of PMR Ex.C-2.  There are hardly any chances to concoct a false story.

10.    More so, it is well settled proposition of  law that the rules are the tools of hand made justice. They are to be used for it’s advancement  and not to thwart it.  In such cases every endeavour should be made to redress the grievances of young widow. Instead of directing O.Ps. to settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis learned District forum  should have directed to grant compensation to the complainant equal to the amount mentioned in the policy.  So impugned order is modified to the extent that complainant is awarded compensation equal to the amount as mentioned in the insurance policy besides other relief already granted by District forum including the interest.

          With this modification, appeal stands disposed of.

 

January 18th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.

`